mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move now to proceed to calendar number 365. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. reid moves to proceed to calendar number 365, s. 2343, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president? i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 646, jeremy stein, of massachusetts to be a member of the board of governors in the federal reserve system. the presiding officer: woup the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to proceed to calendar number 646, jeremy c. stein of massachusetts to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. mr. reid: madam president, i send a cloture motion to the

desk with respect to the stein nomination. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of jeremy c. stein of massachusetts to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve stpeupl, signed -- system, signed by 18 senators as follows: reid, leahy, bingaman, coons, levin, wyden, nelson of nebraska, shaheen, blumenthal, boxer, feinstein, whitehouse, merkley, rockefeller and johnson of south dakota. mr. reid: i now move to legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection the senate moves to legislative session. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 647, jerome powell of maryland, to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination federal reserve system, jerome h. powell of maryland to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk with respect to that nomination. mr. reid: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of jerome h. powell of maryland to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent to waive the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 for both cloture motions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i want to express my appreciation for the good work done on this most important bill that just passed the senate, the ex-im

bank. it was reported out of the banking committee, and senator johnson did a great job with his committee. in addition to that, the work of senator cantwell was exemplary. she is a terrific legislator. she gets her teeth in something, she won't let it go. and she would not let us take our eye off the prize, that is passing this important legislation. i have such admiration for her legislative skills and basically her legislative skills and want it spread across the record my admiration, and congratulate her on this legislation which meant so much to her and the entire country. mr. president, the national flood insurance program is set to expire at the end of may, this month. this program provides insurance coverage for almost six million people who live and work in zones, flood zones. the national flood insurance program is self-sustaining. for more than 40 years it's

guarded american homeowners against flood-related disasters. the program expires, new housing construction will stall, real estate transaction will come to a halt, taxpayers will be on the hook for future disasters. we've not been able to bring flood insurance to the floor because we've had a lot of problems with senate procedure, that some believe is abusive, that's left us with so little time. as you can see, i filed cloture on two nomination for the federal reserve. i'll file later on a judge that's been waiting for almost a year. so, no one believes that there's enough time to pass conference and enact a long-term flood insurance bill before the end of this month. so we're in the situation we have to do another short-term extension. thus, i will seek to pass an extension of this important program now, and, therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 366, s. 2344,

which is an extension of the national flood insurance program. that bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president, i object, and i will hold my comments until after the majority leader finishes his talk so i can explain my objection. you'd like for me to go ahead? i'd be happy to go ahead. mr. reid: i'm serious about this, i'm anxious to hear it. mr. coburn: we've had 13 short-term extensions to the national flood insurance program. that's over the past four and a half, five years. there's a bill set to be brought to the floor, and yet we're going to have a short-term extension again. this program is not financially sound, and it is not

self-sustaining. it runs a $900 million deficit every year. what is the national flood insurance program? do we need it? yes. am i objecting that we need it? no. but the vast majority of the moneys that are expended by hardworking americans go to subsidize the insurance for homeowners' second and vacation homes. multiple times in the senate and in the house both have concurred that this should be taken away, this subsidy, for those in terms of second homes and vacation properties. and so what i would expect, if we're going to do an extension, then we ought to do an extension with something that both bodies have already passed, which includes making those people who have properties eight times the average value of the rest of the

homes in the flood insurance carry their fair share of their insurance. and so i'm not inclined, no matter what happens to the flood insurance program, to allow us to continue to extend. i'd make one other point. we won't have time in december to fix this, with everything else that's coming up. so the time to fix this is now. and i won't object to coming to the five-year reauthorization to the floor. i don't think anybody on our side will as well. and we should address this, and we could be done with it. but another short-term extension is not what this country needs. we can't afford losing another $900 million-plus. the american taxpayer is on the hook for $1.3 trillion with this program right now, and the average subsidy to the average home is over $1,000 a year.

so i have no objection to supporting those who actually need our help, who are in flood-prone areas. but those that have the tremendous benefit and the opportunity to have second and third homes -- and i think it's objectable that we continue to -- objectionable that we continue to subsidize their purchase of flood insurance. to that, i object. mr. reid: mr. president, before my friend leaves the floor -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: thank you. i would hope that we could do a five-year bill. as my colleague knows, the main impediment to the regular functioning of the senate this year has been the offering of irrelevant amendments. so i'm wondering if i could say through the chair to my friend, the junior senator from oklahoma, as to what kind of an agreement you think we can get on the number of amendments on something like this?

mr. coburn: mr. president, i would respond to the majority leader through the chair to say i would help him in any way that i could with my side of the aisle to make sure that we had cogent amendments to this bill and also agree to a limited number of them since it is important that we reauthorize this program. mr. reid: how many? i say again through the chair to my friend, how many amendments do you think you would need? mr. coburn: one or two. mr. reid: i appreciate my friend from oklahoma. it's something i would like to be able to do, but we have so much to do. we've got the farm bill. we've got cybersecurity. we've got the f.d.a. bill. and i'm filing cloture on nominations. people have been waiting to change their lives. i'm so sorry that we can't legislate more. this is a bill -- i have sympathy with my friend from oklahoma. i don't agree with everything he

said, but this is a program that needs to be changed, and i recognize that. so i will continue working with my friend, and maybe there's some way that we can work together to figure out a way to move this forward. it's really hard to -- what i would suggest is i would be happy to work on my side because senator johnson has talked to me twice today on this legislation, to figure out what amendments my folks might want to offer, because they want to offer amendments. if my friend from oklahoma would also make a decision on his side, as he indicated, cogent

amendments, relevant amendments, we could put this in a little package and move to it without my having to file cloture and do these amendments. i'd like to do that. i'll work on my side to find out what amendments there are. and if my friend would do that, on monday or tuesday we'll talk about this and see if we can get a very concise agreement to do this important legislation. and my friend is not denying that. but i think we do have to make some changes in it. i'm happy to move forward. i think the house is going to take something up pretty soon. i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: if the senator from new jersey would give me the courtesy of five minutes just to speak as in morning business and then i'll be through. i appreciate what the majority leader has said, and i will work my side of the aisle to see if the possibility of moving this

is there, and will give it my 100% effort between now and next monday when i see the majority leader, to see if we can't do it. i would make a couple of points. our nation's in big trouble, and we're not acting like it's in big trouble. and it seems that the way we're operating is from crisis to crisis. that's not good for the country. it's not good for the agencies. it's certainly not good for the individuals. and it makes it to where we actually can't do effective legislating. the idea behind the flood insurance program is almost 50 years old. there's nothing wrong with its intent, but we can't afford $900 million a year in subsidies to the very wealthy in this country for their second or vacation homes. and so it is time to, if we're talking about fairness, as the

president talks, then it's time to reform this program, whether it's an extension or not, this component of it, where there's a fair premium, where we're not subsidizing those that can in fact take care of themselves in this country. and whether it's this bill or the farm bill, where we're subsidizing 4% of the farmers with 60% of the crop insurance premium, it's the same issue. and so i look forward to working with the majority leader, and i will do my part to try to gather up the amendments that might be there and work with our leadership to try to be able to bring this bill to the floor. thank you. and i thank the senator from new jersey. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to speak about the violence against women act that the senate passed, but we seem to have a challenge with our colleagues in the house of representatives. in my view, violence against any woman is still violence.

and apparently my republican colleagues in the house do not share that view. republicans in the house have introduced a bill that would not protect all women. their bill would roll back protections for certain vulnerable populations. it would strip provisions in the senate bill that protect women from discrimination and abuse, specific khreurbgs native -- specifically, native american women, the lgbt community and undocumented immigrants. it rolls back protections they have under current law. mr. president, we've seen that violence against women is an epidemic, and it plagues all of us, not just some of us. we have fought against it. we have tried to end it. we have established programs and policies at the national and state levels to mitigate it. we have stood with the victims of domestic violence. and now we must stand up and reaffirm our outrage.

it is, in my mind, a no-brainer, and i am, frankly, hard pressed to understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence against any woman. no matter who they are, no matter what their orientation or citizenship is. i am hard pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude violence against certain women, turn back the clock to a time when such violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace, and make a distinction when and against whom such violence meets our threshold of outrage. there can be no such threshold and no such distinction. violence against any woman is an outrage, plain and simple. and so is the message to be that we are willing for some reason that in my mind defies logic to

accept violence against certain women, because that seems to be the message the other body is sending us. mr. president, i cannot believe that anyone would take such a position, but that's exactly what we would do if we listen to our republican house colleagues, and that, mr. president, is completely unacceptable to this senator and should be unacceptable to every member of congress and every american. if our friends on the other side deny that they are waging a political cultural war against women, then why, mr. president, are they willing to accept an actual war against certain women by excluding them from protection under the violence against women act? the reauthorization of the violence against women act doesn't just affect those horror might become victims of sexual violence or domestic violence.

it affects all of us. nearly one in five women report being the victim of rape or attempted rape. one in six report being stalked. one in four women report having been beaten by their partner. of those who report being raped, 80% report being raped before the age of 25. the short-term physical and emotion trauma of such an event cannot be overstated. domestic and sexual violence is an issue that affects us all, and we must be all part of the solution. since 1994, the violence against women act has been the centerpiece in our comprehensive approach to protect and empower women, and it must remain so. since the passage of faw in 1994 -- of fawa in 1994, there has been enormous positive change. from 1993-2010, the rate of

interparliamentary violence declined. more victims are reporting violence to police and those reports are resulting in more arrests and prosecutions. vawa is working but there are still women who need protection. for example, in one day in new jersey, a survey found that domestic violence programs assisted 1,292 victims. on that same day, new jersey domestic violence hotlines answered 444 phone calls. so i will -- our work on this issue is not yet done. and looking to the merits of the reauthorization, let me highlight for the record several critical changes in the legislation, changes that did not simply extend successful programs but built upon them. every reauthorization of the violence against women act has incorporated new understandings and updated knowledge, and this reauthorization was and should be no different. first and foremost, the senate

reauthorization includes additional training for law enforcement, victim services and courts that increase the focus on high-risk offenders and victims, including connecting high-risk victims with crisis intervention services. i'm sure no one can argue against that. second, the senate bill strengthens our response to sexual assault while increasing the connection to nonprofit groups. sexual assault coalitions in every state have been indispensable allies. i met with a large roundtable before our debate and discussions here in the senate, and this bill support theirs efforts. it included a 20% setaside in assistance to states for sexual assault programs and included reforms to reduce the unprecedented backlog of rape kits. now, i have been proud to support funding to reduce this backlog. just recently, i supported senator leahy's effort to fund the debbie smith d.n.a. backlog

grant program at the current level of $125 million with at least $90 million directly spent on reducing the d.n.a. backlogs. and i'm happy to say that the violence against women act will make important strides to reduce the backlog. most importantly, given the debate on this legislation, this reauthorization recognizes that domestic and sexual violence affects all groups, regardless of their sexual orientation. we included commonsense protections against discrimination on race and religion, national origin, sexual disability because it is quite simply the right thing to do because all violence against women is an outrage to all of us. for the first time, the senate bill established the fundamental notion that victims cannot be denied services based on gender identity or sexual orientation. we included provisions to

protect immigrant victims of violence and native american victims. in the senate, the bill passed 68-31, with a dozen republicans voting in support of the final legislation despite republican attempts to weaken the bill during the senate's consideration of the legislation. unfortunately, republicans in the house are attempting to weaken the bill and do what a minority in the senate could not, and for the first time in the nearly 20-year history of the violence against women act, the house reauthorization doesn't expand protections. in essence, it actually instead eliminates a series of them. in its version, the house sent an undenial message. if you're a native american, if you are lgbt or undocumented, you do not deserve protection. that is the house message. to start, lgbt victims do not

receive the protection they need in the house bill. professionals in the field specifically requested nondiscrimination provisions based upon their direct experiences. studies on the issue only confirm this need. 45% of lgbt victims were turned away from domestic violence shelters. 55% were denied protective orders. the senate version ensures all victims, gay or straight, share in the protections. the house version denies these critical protections to lgbt victims. under the house legislation, immigrant victims of violence would fare far worse than under current law, far worse than under current law. domestic violence advocates tell us that often abusers threaten their significant others with

having be brought to authorities and with the possibility of deportation unless they continued to submit themselves to dangerous and inhumane treatment. the violence against women act provides a way out. the house version of that law does away with confidentiality protections for immigrant victims. studies have shown that victims are most vulnerable immediately before or after they leave the abuser, and vawa protects these victims with confidentiality when they come forward to seek help. the house version instead creates a cruel possibility that in seeking help, the victim will be exposed and face more abuse. how perverse is that? house republicans would put burdensome new requirements on immigrant victims and give them less help than they receive under the current law.

the abuser often possesses the relevant evidence while the abuse faces language barriers, isolation and limited access to legal representation. in past debates of the violence against women act, we have had wide bipartisan consensus around protections for these victims because a victim is a victim is a victim. but the house reauthorization ignores this consensus and places an unimaginable burden on self-petitions. under the house proposal, the program could protect immigrant victims called the u-v.c.r. program would be a hollow shell of its former self. the permanent visa would now be temporary, reducing the incentive for immigrants to take the risk and assist law enforcement in identifying the abuser, in identifying the person who may have committed a

sexual rape. of course, proponents claim that these reforms are needed to --quote, unquote -- combat fraud in the system. but i have to ask what fraud? to obtain a u-visa in the first place, law enforcement personnel must personally sign off. is there some suggestion that the law enforcement personnel are engaged in a fraud? there is no evidence of fraud in this program. the simple enforcement technique has proven profoundly effective, yet the house insists on adding additional burdens on a vulnerable population, only to fight a nonexistent problem. moreover, allowing these abusers to go free puts more criminals in our community who can then victimize more women in the future. our whole goal here is to end the abuse and to get the abuser to ultimately face up to their

punishment, and instead, we would say oh, no, let the abuser go ahead and continue their abuse and we will subject the victim ultimately to a set of circumstances in which not only will they not come forth and talk about the abuse, we will subject the victim ultimately to facing even greater challenges in their lives. knowing what is at stake and what it would mean to the many victims of domestic violence and sexual violence, there is no question we must pass final legislation as soon as possible. the debate, mr. president, should be about one thing and one thing only -- protecting victims, all victims, and each and every one of these women in these categories are, in fact, victims. there should be no differentiation and there should be protection for all. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. earlier today, i attended a memorial service to honor our nation's law enforcement officers who laid down their lives to protect their fellow citizens. since 1962, may 15 has stood as a day of remembrance for the many fallen police officers who faithfully served our communities and our nation. they must never be forgot. this year, 362 names were added to the national law enforcement officers memorial, and among those names were three brave officers from kansas. two of these men died in the line of duty many years ago, but we pause today to remember their sacrifice. in 1892, and drew balfour of kiowa county was fulfilling his duties as a local sheriff and pursuing a man who was wanted for theft when he was mortally

wounded. andrew passed away at the young age of 41, leaving behind a wife and six children. in 1922, william bloomfield, a deputy sheriff serving in bourbon county, was arresting a well-known criminal when he was killed during a fierce gun battle. these two men honorably served by faithfully carrying out their duties. rather than shirk from danger, police officers pledged to face danger with courage, and that is exactly what these two men did. just five months ago, kansans were grieved by the loss of another officer, sergeant david ensbrenner of achison, kansas. on december 9, 2001, david joined a fellow officer on a routine call to see a local resident. as they were turning to leave the front step of the home, a person suddenly appeared and opened fire on david without warning. this act of violence was unprovoked and forever robbed the ensbrenner family of their

father and husband and the achison community of a loyal public servant. when we lose someone in a community in kansas, it's not just a name to us. it's somebody we go to church with. somebody we see at our kids' activities at school. somebody we know and care for. that is how achison felt about david. in remembering david, achison mayor alan rivas said this -- he was number one father, number one husband, number one partner to his fellow officers, number one son. en scribed on the national law enforcement memorial here in washington are these words -- it is not how these officers died that made them heroes. it is how they lived. police chief mike wilson served alongside david for 24 years and said this about his former colleague and friend. those words speak directly to

david, those words on the national law enforcement memorial. those words speak directly to david. how true about our brother. david was dedicated to his family, his fellow law enforcement officers and his community. he was well known in afternoon issonson and well -- afternoon issonson and well loved. he served in the afchison police department for 24 years. david was on the board of trustees of his local church and found great joy in teaching and coaching his daughters on their softball teams. last be december i witnessed the impact david had on the community when i attended his memorial service and more than 2,000 people gathered to pay their respects to him. during the service, many moving tributes were read about david and how he lived his life, but one that stood out from among the others was a statement from david's wife, kerry. she said this about her husband: david was a man of few words. he always tried to keep a simple

life and when i questioned things he would remind me it's okay sometimes not to understand. we don't fully understand, don't want understand at all really why david's life was taken nor why the lives of more than 19,000 officers we remembered today ended so soon but we want to express our gratitude for their service and dedication to their communities and to our country. during national police week, we also remember their families and the loved ones they lefd behind. may -- left behind. may god comfort them in their time of grief and be a source of strength for them. may he protect all those who continue to serve us today. i want to especially mention david insbrenne wrench r's wife, kerry and their three daughters. i want them to know we honor the way david lived his life and tell them that we love and care for them today and always.

i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i come to the floor to join my colleague, senator menendez and i think some of our other colleagues who will be here soon to reaffirm a commitment to the reauthorization of the violence against women act. that act recently passed out of the senate with a strong

bipartisan vote that recognizes our bipartisan commitment here to end domestic and sexual abuse, stalking, and dating violence. the house of representatives will soon be taking a vote on their proposed counterpart to the violence against women act, and i want to address some of the concerns that i have with the bill that is on the floor in the house. what we've seen in this country is that domestic violence has a significant impact on families, on victims, it compromises the very stability of our towns and communities. the violence against women act provides essential resources for victims and for law enforcement. and i was pleased to see so many of us here in the senate put

politics aside and support this important reauthorization. unfortunately, the house version of the reauthorization of the violence against women act does not provide the same level of protection for victims, and it does not include some resources that have specifically been requested by law enforcement. in the house bill, protections are diminished for college students, for lesbian, gay, and transgendered victims, for immigrants, and for native americans. the senate bill strengthens the violence against women law to provide the -- the violence against women act to provide more protections to women and their families. the house bill weakens the law by failing to state that same-sex couples will have equal access to services, by decreasing protections for immigrant victims and die declining to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts.

one example of some of the changes in the house bill where i think it fails, is around the protections that the senate bill provides to women students on college campuses. the senate bill provides strong protections that have been oamented in the house bill. -- oament omitted in the house bill. the senate bill requires a university to implement prevention programs, teaching all students, male and female, how to help prevents sexual violence and dating violence, including bystander education. the senate bill also requires a university to make reasonable accommodations for a student who needs to change their living, working, or academicking situation as a result of being victimized. for example, if a young woman is a victim of an assault and her attacker lives in her dorm, what the senate bill would do is require the university to help

that young woman find another place to live. unfortunately, these kinds of protections are not included in the house bill. the department of justice recently 12345eu9 smaited that 25% of college -- recently estimated that 25% of college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a four-year college period, and that women between the ages of 16-24 will experience rape at a rate that's four times higher than the assault rate for all women. there is no doubt that this is a serious problem. and the safeguards that we implemented in the senate bill must be preserved if we're to provide the protections that young women and men in college deserve. when we were working on our reauthorization here in the senate, i had a chance to meet with case workers at crisis centers and with some of the

victims of domestic violence in new hampshire. i heard from one woman who said that if it hadn't been for that 24-hour hotline and her caseworker at the bridges crisis centers in nashua, she would never have been able to leave her abuser. she was finally able to stand up for herself and end the terrible cycle of abuse because of the violence against women act. all victims should have equal access to these important resources, and it is imperative that this bill provide that. so i urge my colleagues in the house to insist on these essential components so that can move forward on this reauthorization and we can protect all the victims of domestic violence. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i rise this evening to honor a long-time friend, a confidante and mentor, check coalson, whose life we will celebrate tomorrow at a memorial service at the national cathedral. it's been said that a man's character can be attested by the way he responds to adversity. if that is the case, chuck coalson's character was one of remarkable strength, tenacity, faith, and humility. chuck was a brilliant man with a resume of impressive accomplishments at a very young age. a scholarship to an ivy league school, a law degree from george washington university, a veteran, and at one time the youngest captain in the marine corps. a former chief of staff to a u.s. senator from massachusetts, and then top

assistant and legal counsel to the president of the united states. now, this doesn't sound like the type of man that we would find himself sitting alone in a federal prison cell, but that's exactly what happened to chuck colson and what happened there changed his life forever. known as president nixon's hatchet man, colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the daniel elseburg case in the watergate scandal and went from white house special counsel to incarcerated felon. in fall, from a confidante of the president of the united states to a federal prison cell is about as far and as deep as anyone could fall. that's what we call hitting rock bottom. but rock bottom for chuck colson

became a time of repentance, a time of grace, and a time of transformation. far from the rose garden, he was behind those prison bars where chuck colson made one of the most important decisions of his life, one that would impact the lives of thousands. he decided to dedicate the rest of his life serving the god that he loved. the scripture in proverbs reads trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways submit to him and he will make your paths straight. with redemption that can only come through the grace of god, and with a renewed sense of vision, chuck did just that. he put his trust in the lord and submitted to him and he disiet decided to let god write the story of his life rather than try to control his own destiny. that transformation is the story

that we will celebrate tomorrow at the national cathedral. a story of redemption and a testament to the power of god's forgiveness and love. chuck colson's experience in prison and his renewed sense of vision opened his eyes to a sector of our society that is often forgotten. once a prisoner himself, and having experienced the depth of his own need for repentance and transformation, even those at the very bottom of society, chuck blesd that god could change them and any willing heart. as described in the first two of his many published books, the first one "born ghen" and the second" life sentence" chuck dedicated his life to serving inmates and the families of prisoners. in 1976 he practiced what he preached and founded prison fellowship, a christian ministry to give prisoners the opportunity to experience the

radically transforming power of christ that he had experienced himself. chuck colson's ministry took him to visit 600 prisons in the united states and in 40 other countries. he worked relentlessly to improve prison conditions, increase access to religious programs, and to provide resources in support to the families of prisoners. prison ministry was not his only passion. in his later years chuck focused his efforts on developing other christian leaders who could influence their communities through their faith. this became the cornerstone of the chuck col center for christian world view, a research and training center established to promote christian world view teaching. chuck has touched many lives of many people, through his ministry, books, lectures, and charity work and i am one of those who is personally grateful for the positive influence he has had on my life. he was -- it was in april of

1976 that i was -- that i attended an annual fort wayne, indiana, mayors' prayer breakfast. i was intrigued with the speaker who was announced as chuck colson, recently released from prison, formerly a watergate figure and legal counsel to the president. as i sat through his presentation, i was touched in a way and reached in a way that transformed my life, and i am ever grateful to chuck colson for using himself as i think a conduit of a message that i also needed to receive. it resulted in a radical change of course for me, from a predictable, settled, purposeful, i thought, life, as an attorney and a -- in a

mid-sized firm in fort wayne, indiana, to becoming engaged in politics, something i never thought i would engage in, it was chuck colson that made me ask that same question and make that same decision that he made, and that is to no longer try to control the direction of my life, but subject myself to the control of someone who had a plan for me. and that plan was not a specific serving in the senate or congress. it was simply to be open to the possibility of a path that perhaps i had not ever thought would be taken. as a consequence of that and as a consequence of a string of events that is impossible for me to claim any credit for, i find myself standing here in the united states senate, delivering his tribute to chuck

colson. marsha and i will miss him greatly and we will continue to be motivated and inspired by the example of how life should be lived. when i first came to the senate, i was here just two days and i received a call from chuck colson. he said, i have a gift for you and it is a precious gift and one i don't want to give, but i think this gift can be more useful as someone who can speak as a united states senator than someone like me who can speak as a head of a prison fellowship. that gift was a young man by the name of michael gerson, who had after leaving college worked for prison fellowship, helped both through policy decisions and through the written word, helped chuck with his ministry. and this young man worked for me for a number of years and was -- i was the voice of his thinking and the voice of his written messages. he went on to become a

speechwriter for a presidential candidate and then chief speechwriter for president george w. bush. michael gerson wrote a piece that was published in "the washington post" on april 22 entitled "charles colson found freedom in prison." that piece, i think, is worth certainly reading and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the record peedly follopeed --immediately followi. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mike gerson said, "chuck led a movement of volunteers attempting to love some of their least lovable neighbors. this inversion of social policies and priorities putting the last first is the best evidence of a faith that is more thank a crutch, opiate, or a self-help program; it is the

hallmark of yo authentic religin and it is the vast humane contribution of chuck colson. chuck colson's remarkable life story can serve as a guiding light and provide all of us the courage and strength to overcome whatever adversity we may face in our own be lives. may we remember the example of chuck colson and in the words prayed so often by my very dear friend, "please show me how you want me to live and give me the power to live that way." mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. it's very hard to believe that today marks exactly two months since i first came to the floor to advocate passage on the senate's version of the violence against women act. i was very encouraged to see our body finally come together and eventually support this important legislation. the violence against women act has helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their families, and it certainly was a no-brainer to make sure all women had access to that assistance. however, i was very disappointed to learn that a day after we passed it, the house republicans pulled an immediate u-turn and

introduced their version of the bill that would undo the commonsense progress we made. the house republican version of sra*u -- vawa is a giant step backward, dangerous and irresponsible and leaves women across the country more vulnerable to domestic abuse. not only do they remove important protections that would be created by the senate version of the bill, they actually strip existing protections already provided by this important law. in fact, it removed critical protections for lgbt victims. it does very little to address the epidemic of sexual violence in our communities. it removed critical protections already in place for students on college campuses and it rolled back protections for immigrant victims. mr. president, we've made a lot of progress since vawa was first passed in 1994, and i hope no

one will insist on putting partisan politics ahead of protecting victims of domestic violence. where a person lives, who they love, what their citizenship status may be should not determine whether or not their perpetrators are brought to justice. the senate bill that we passed last month builds on what works in the current law. it improved what didn't. it continues on the path of reducing violence towards women. and it should not be controversial. mr. president, it's time for the house republicans to come to their senses, support our bipartisan bill so that women and families in this country can get the resources and support that they need. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate enter a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. i ask that we proceed to senate resolution 460. the clerk: designating the week of may 26, 2012 as national public works week. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, there be no intervening action or debate and the statements placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: and by say before we leave this, mr. president, senator inhofe and senator boxer, the chair and ranking member of that most important committee, environment and public works, this is national public works week and this is

good because during this week we're doing our it most on a bipartisan basis to complete the conference with the house to get the highway bill passed, 2.8 million jobs. that would be a big celebration for national public works week if we could get that bill done. and i appreciate very much boxer and inhofe working so closely together on that committee. i ask unanimous consent we proceed to s. res. 461. the presiding officer: are can the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 461 recognizing the teachers of the united states for their contributions to the development and progress of our nation. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent this resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements he relating to this matter appear in the appropriate place in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, yes,

3187 was introduced earlier today by senators harkin and enzi, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3187 a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act and for other purposes. mr. reid: i ask for its second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the measure will be read the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, very important piece of legislation done in the right way. senators harkin and enzi have done something in the way we always used to do things. they moved a bill out of committee to the senate floor. truly a bipartisan bill. so important to our country. the fadz bill. food and drug administration. and senator enzi has always been very, very foikdz on -- focused

on when we bring something to the floor it must have a committee mark on it and this bill does. mr. president, the reason i moved to the bill the way i have is to line this up for filing cloture on thursday. i hope we don't have to file cloture on this. to proceed to it. why don't we get on the bill. we could get on the bill, start on it monday, we could start offering amendments and get this thing moving along. i've talked to senator enzi, talked to senator harkin, we had really good luck on the highway bill, we had good luck also on the postal bill, relevant amendments. this is a very important piece of legislation. i hope we can move to this without having to file cloture. if i have to file cloture i'll have to file cloture, but i sure hope not. i really admire the cooperation and the working together of senators harkin and enzi. mr. president, i now ask

consent when the senate completes its business today the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, may 16, following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day. i now --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you. mr. president, following leader remarks, tomorrow morning the senate will begin debate on several motions to proceed to senate -- to resolutions introduced by republican senators. this is an agreed-upon method of proceeding on these resolutions. it's my intention to equally divide the first hour with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. so i would ask consent that be the case. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so we -- there is six

hours of debate time allowed under the consent agreement approved earlier today. i certainly hope that we can get this done expeditiously. we'll have senator conrad will be leading the efforts on our side, opposed to this, and once we get this out of the way, we should move forward. mr. president, after tomorrow morning, after we understand that morning business will be deemed expired and time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, i ask unanimous consent i be recognized at that time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

instead accelerated plans for back up oxygen system for the f-22 fighter jet. some f-22 violence of experienced dizziness and other symptoms of oxygen deprivation while flying but the air force does not know what is causing the problem. spokesman john kirby and george little brief reporters this afternoon for about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon and thank you all for coming. we will make a brief statement and then open up for a round of questions. the secretary has been closely following developments with the air force f-22 fighter and the

experience by f-22 pilots. as most advanced fighter aircraft the capability provided by the fifth generation f-22 are important to maintaining our air superiority national security objectives for the protecting air space or the united states for deploying overseas as part of our deterrence and the engagement efforts. secretary panetta's supports to the measures taken so for the by the air force to pursue all plausible hypotheses and the rich causes of the symptoms experienced by the f-22 pilots. however, the safety of the pilot's remains as first and foremost concern. therefore in addition to those measures already taken by the air force to mitigate risks to the pilots they are forced to take three additional measures. first, the air force will expedite installation of an automatic backup in all f-22 fighters. second, effective immediately all f-22 flights will remain

within the proximity of potential landing locations to enable quick recovery and landing show the pilot and counter unanticipated physiological conditions during flight. that means long duration airspace control flights in alaska will be performed by other aircraft. third, the air force will provide to the secretary a monthly progress report as it continues to pursue aggressively the discovery of the root cause of these events. secretary panetta believes the department must do everything possible to ensure pilot safety and minimize flight risks. he will continue to closely monitor the air force's efforts to enhance the safety of this jerry important aircraft. bob? >> george, on that topic, just -- does the secretary consider grounding the aircraft again? and also, does this restriction on the proximity of the landing site affect the deployment of the f-22 that are in the middle east at the moment? >> the secretary believes this is the prudent course of action

to take up this time. as i indicated, he will be receiving regular updates, and all options remain on the table going forward. in terms of the deployment in southwest asia, we believe that we can safely continue that deployment given the geography of the region. >> why not just ground the fleet until you know what's causing the oxygen problem? >> well i think george sitwell, the secretary believes this is the prudent course right now. it allows us to continue to examine the aircraft closely and to try to figure out what happened. there's a troubleshooting process that's going on right now so the air being a system that process these mitigated the risks as much as possible and the safety of the flight is paramount. the secretary will continue to get updates and as he estimates future decisions about the fleet will do that, but right now he

believes coming and he has been briefed very recently on this very deeply, he believes this is the right course right now disconnect the pilots that were interviewed on "60 minutes stuff quote address the issue have air force says the need to take tests from flights to figure out the problem is. they describe themselves as guinea pigs. how do you ensure that airmen were flying are not being used as guinea pigs? >> to refer to a fighter pilot in the united states as a guinea pig. the highly trained, highly skilled and we value their expertise. frankly that service and expertise is critical to helping us figure out what the problem is here. >> on the same topic, this quick recovery issue -- what is -- how far can they fly easily under the new guideline? you said that they don't do any long duration flight.

so what's their limitation now? >> i believe it's situational more than anything, justin. i don't believe there is a nautical mile limit. it's just about appropriate level of proximity to the strips so that if they needed to get down in an emergency they could in a relatively easy quick fashion but there hasn't -- there's not a mile radius spigots' about proximity that strips in alaska that they have to be aware of landing strips and plenty of to accommodate the landing? >> the strips have got to be -- the have to be capable of handling that type of aircraft. absolutely. but it's about the general proximity here. >> what about the comments on the ground? >> the secretary will be receiving regular updates and once these problems are addressed, sure he will make further decisions in concert

with the air force leadership. estimate is the secretary satisfied with how the air force has been handling this? and number two, how well the defense department go about finding of the attitudes and the concerns that all the pilots have who fly the f-22? >> it's safe to say the air force leadership shares a sense of urgency on these issues. and more broadly, he is deeply concerned about the pilot safety. and that's a paramount concern for him coming and he believes it's a paramount concern, obviously, for air force leadership, too. so going forward, that's going to be a key metric, i think i will drive his decision making on this and other matters related to aircraft and other equipment in the u.s. military. >> [inaudible] -- how do you gauge their attitudes, are you going to figure of -- in other words is very concerned -- does he have a concern that the other f-22 pilots perhaps their concerns

haven't been everest -- >> one of the to drivers -- drivers of his concerns for quite some time has been the expression of pilots by reticence to fly the aircraft. so that has figured into this decision to direct these actions to date. he is very concerned about pilot safety and he wants to do because safety concerns to be addressed all levels of command for the proper channels and that's the direction he wants to ensure that we head into the >> so is this a direct response to what is expressed on 60 minutes or have there been any instances of reports a we don't know about since then or can you tell us when the last one was? >> why don't believe there's any new ones since the prez reporting. it is the country's been aware of this issue and concern about it for quite some time. but in light of his decision recently to deploy the aircraft itself was a shot and then in

light of concerns raised, as george mentioned, by pilots who fly the aircraft, she felt that he wanted to drive a little more deeply into the issue, study it a little bit more closely, and then he has made these decisions and issued this correction. yes, jim. >> john, once the back of oxygen system is there, does that -- does it go back to normal in? will they stop this limitation on the flying? >> i wouldn't connect these three in that way, jim. i mean, the secretary wants to preserve his decisions based here. and that's why, you know, getting to bob's question, there's not a deadline here on how long this is coming to be in affect, this proximity issue. he is coming to receive regular updates from the air force, and he will make decisions based on what he learned and what they've learned about fixing the problem. this is a problem that needs to be solved, and i think he wants to preserve as much to susan spacious as he can to this gimmick of the root cause of the

hypoxia like event hasn't been determined. it is possible, and i am not the technical expert but it is possible that the -- it could be attributed to the oxygen system in the airplane, thus the installation of back of oxygen systems. but there could be other causes, too and the air force is looking aggressively at other factors that might be contributing to the hypoxia-like defense. >> how many people have suffered the seasons of hypoxia? how long has this thing been going on? does this create the last very and coming off provision back in november? >> it's a good question. i think the air force is probably in the best position to answer those specific questions. estimate i do have some -- >> do you have the tools? >> the first report is paths the africa related event was april of 2008. there's been a total of 12 reported between that time and january of 2011.

>> that doesn't -- the maintainers of for hypoxia africa like sometimes does it? >> i don't believe it does but i would refer you to the air force on not one. >> wait, wait, wait. joe ghosh called on by george. why don't we stay on the same subject? >> on a different subject, clich questions -- >> to go ahead. >> quickly, but go ahead. that's fine. ladies first. [laughter] >> that's okay. go ahead. thank you. >> the united states is planning to announce the second phase of military aid with regards to the israel's i ron dome. do you know when this would take place? is next week? >> we have nothing to announce on that. >> nothing on libya? >> nothing to announce today. >> if the minister is planning to visit the pentagon this week? >> the minister will visit the secretary on thursday. the secretary is looking forward to that discussion. he always enjoys receiving

minister. the pentagon and to discussing the important issues of common concern. >> the reason i'm asking is because the jurors a one post is reporting that mr. murdoch and secretary panetta will sign the second phase of the -- we've seen the press report but we have nothing to announce from the podium on this today. >> will there be any coverage of the visit? >> we will let you know. we are still sorting out the logistics for the visit. >> coordinating. [laughter] >> there's some more questions on the iron dome. >> [inaudible] >> this is for the installation of the backup systems, that's all. >> and will the ones that are already deployed -- will they have pretty? are they the ones that are going to get it first? >> i have a few bullets here to don't mind me reading it because i want to be precise. the implication for the excellent installation of the backup system is obviously going to begin this fiscal year.

phase one of the auto dhaka oxygen system, qualification and flight testing will wrap up in late november of this year. the first retrofit will be completed in december of this year. in beginning in january of 2013 the plant retrofit rate is ten aircraft per month. and then i will just -- i think that's where i will leave that for now. the air force will have -- >> what does that mean? [laughter] >> it means they are going to start -- they're starting work on it right now. he wants this accelerated. but it looks like the one actually start getting into the aircraft before the end of the year, before the end of the calendar year. >> [inaudible] -- the backup systems what actually start going into aircraft until november -- late november of this year. >> the testing will drop in november. the retrofit will be in november. retrofit meaning installed. so by the end of this year. >> okay? >> forgive me because i missed the beginning, but can you explain the rationale -- need

you did already -- but with these restrictions on landing or not been far enough, not being too far from the landing, but what that insures? i mean if you get hypoxia and blackout, why does it help that you're closer than before to the landing spot if you -- you see amine? what's the rationale behind the decision? >> it's an added safety precaution they saw the onset -- i am not a medical expert, but mike understanding is the onset is fairly gradual coming and this is just an actor added a safety precaution to make sure that they should -- should a pile of anticipate or believe that this is an issue that he will be able to lee and his aircraft in a relatively short order. >> and you didn't -- and i know you didn't say in subtly how long and how far -- [inaudible] >> this is an -- i mean -- we want to allow the maximum flexibility for the pilots as well. so there's not a geographic let here to be it's just a prudent amount of proximity to a landing strip is what we are looking for

a bit >> can you give us the time it held for you -- how far the pilot -- how long it would take to land under the new rules? >> i wouldn't do that to get its way to the case by case on where the aircraft is. the house to the commission is flying where it is to get i mean, the idea here is to make sure that there is a prudent amount of safety belts seem to each one of the flights in case the hypoxia should occur but not be so prescriptive that you limit the ability of the pilot to actually do the mission that they are being asked to do. islamic it's not prudent for us. you are not letting us know what you determine prudent is. you don't know if it is an hour away from the landing strip, two hours, 15 minutes? >> that's right. but -- >> and in terms of judging the seriousness of which the pentagon is responding to this. >> we are responding very seriously. >> but you can't help out with more information?

>> it's deliberately not prescriptive in that regard so as not to take away the flexibility that pilots need in the air. and we leave it to their good judgment -- again come back to spence's question they are highly trained, highly skilled. they can make those kind of decisions in terms of how long and how far. but we have put -- it's all -- the secretary has made it clear what he expects from the air force that the air force and their chain of command to determine those kind of parameters. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. look, i think mike's had his hand for a while. are we still won the of 22 -- [laughter] >> it was reported for years ago. i'm wondering whether there has been any serious consideration given to -- i mean, presumably, not just -- it was just the oxygen system that wasn't working, you just replace it. but there is some consideration being given to the extraordinary versatility of this aircraft --

[inaudible] -- everything else in which case is this unique to this aircraft or has anyone come across this same thing with the joint strike fighter for example? >> we are not aware of this an issue in the joint strike fighter. i would defer to the air force experts who know aircraft better than we do. but we do believe this is a unique issue for this particular air frame right now. >> again, this is an engineering problem that needs to be resolved and their working really hard to do exactly that. it doesn't take away from the importance of the -- of the platform of the aircraft, or the fact that we still bellevue, we still need it. it is a very powerful arab in the quiver that we want to keep being able to use. and that's why we are working so hard to try to fix this. at its core it's an engineering problem that needs to be solved. >> [inaudible] >> sure. 66 whether there was a link between the failure, if that is the right word, of the oxygen system, and some other aspect of the aircraft -- >> one is inextricably linked to the other. if it is, as i said, if it is just an oxygen system, you can

just -- that's easy, but if it's linked to something else to do with the plane's versatility, that would be more serious, i would suppose. >> epoxy of -- hypoxia-like evens, mike? will again, we haven't determined recalls. it could be something connected to the oxygen system. it could be other aspects of the aircraft that could contribute to the hypoxia through code like events whether it's g force -- the altitude, at which the plane flies. you're right, it is an extremely versatile, capable aircraft. so the air force is looking at the full spectrum of possibilities in a very robust manner. and the secretary is a very confident that they are doing that. >> i think it is just too soon to tell, mike, with any degree of specificity what the exact cause is. >> just to follow up on dan's point. the implication is, by the

secretary ordering the sections to be taken, that he's not satisfied with the air force leadership's handling of this. has he been satisfied with them, the action so far or not? what prompted him to act their force to handle this? >> welcome the air force has been addressing this in a robust manner and as i said. he has taken on board within recent weeks concerns addressed by pilots themselves. and he is received briefings on this issue. so that's what's driving his concern, and he wants to help the air force accelerating the address and potential problems with the aircraft. that's the long and short of it. >> why did the aircraft -- themselves? >> that's been looking at this, as i've said, very aggressively for some period of time. the plane was grounded -- i don't recall for how long, but for an extended period, and the secretary wants to add his muscle behind their efforts to address these problems. >> i think the bigger point here is that the leadership across

the department cares about this issue, cares about safety of the flight. it's that important, and it's that important to the secretary of defense. >> so it seems -- >> let's go with blaring and the -- >> used the words "automatic that oxygen generator." is this going to replace the manually operated back oxygen generator that they have already in these, that the installed -- >> the phrase i think is and here was -- >> [inaudible] the return -- >> freezing think was in here was a "although backup." i'd refer you to the air force on a question like that, larry e. i'm just -- we are not experts on that. >> okay. let's see here. we have some go back now? wright? yes. >> welcome afghanistan and pakistan, please. as far as afghanistan is concerned, the murder of -- arsala rahmani's murder -- you

think that -- how can you predict the future peace investors in afghanistan? >> we condemn his murdered yet he was important to efforts in afghanistan to seek lasting peace and stability in the country. as tragic as his murder was, we don't believe that a wealthy real of efforts in afghanistan or the efforts of the government in afghanistan cause all of in usa to flecha and pakistan going on, and the pakistani foreign

minister, madam khar has said the roots should be open between the two countries. and my question is that with the conditions they are putting in the future still and the drone tax must be immediately stopped by the u.s. against pakistan and second, some kind of apology, not just what they are saying the u.s. had said in the past. and finally, how about the haqqani network for terrorism and dagestan is a concern. so where are we stambaugh this opening of the roads? >> we have been in discussions with the government of pakistan for some time on the reopening of the ground lines of communication and we are hopeful that in the very near future they will be reopened. they're important supply routes for us. we continue to work closely with the pakistanis to renew a vibrant relationship that gets over some of the obstacles we face together in the past.

..

>> we have expressed deep regret and extended condolences to the iraqi people and those injured in the incident as well. we have been clear about expressing regrets about that incident. and the goal now is to press ahead and move forward and reinvigorate the relationship with the pakistani people. >> on yemen, reports of assaults by yemeni troops on al qaeda militants. yemeni officials saying that this was carried out with u.s. support. they say that the attack and assault was direct guidance from u.s. troops in the country. what can you tell us about the type of support that u.s. forces

provided? >> we have long-standing counterterrorism cooperation with the government of yemen. they have taken aggressive action inside their own country against militants that would like to support or to plan attacks against the yemenis and to plan attacks against the united states or other countries. i'm not going to get into the specifics of reported operations inside yemen. but we believe that the government of yemen has taken on, in a decisive manner, the need to go after militants that are at located inside their own country. >> a large part of what we're doing is trying to build their capacity to take on these kinds of missions as well. i agree, george. when i i'm not going to get into the details of ct operations. just understand that the mission is to help build their capacity and to deal with the threat inside their own borders.

>> can i follow-up? as described in the article and the rules mandating their operations in yemen, does that sound feasible given what restrictions thereunder, what described in -- what we just described? is about feasible and what you just said under the parameters of the current mission? which is to train? >> it is to build their capacity. and again, we are not going to get into the details of the all that. but the secretary was clear last week. we do conduct operations with the yemenis to get after terrorist targets. again, we are not going to go into the details of that. but a large part of that effort is helping them to build their capacity and do it by themselves. >> leary? >> yes, further north in the region, the secretary said last week that there was a planning going on with regards to syria.

i know you guys don't want to get into details, but can you give us an idea of the timeline -- has he given anyone a timeline as to when he wants to see a plan on the desk? and can you give us any broad picture of the nature of that planning we met. >> we are an organization that plans constantly come up sometimes with timelines and sometimes without. i would not want to get into specifics with respect to planning on syria. the focus remains, when it comes to syria, the focus remains on -- with the international community applying diplomatic and economic pressure on the asad regime. they continue to perpetrate violence against their own people and that is deplorable. as the secretary said, the goal is to continue that effort. in terms of planning -- something this building does all the time. >> all right, we're doing some go backs here.

all right. >> john, if i understand your timeline correctly, the flight test contribute to understanding the source of the oxygen problems. is it fair to conclude from that that the chances are the department will not find out what the real cause is of the oxygen problems before that time? >> i think they are working on this as hard as they can. and i think if they could find into next week, they would be delighted to do that. but what i was talking about was the flight testing for the backup system that is going to get installed. it was about the retrofit of the backup system. not the general problem-solving effort. >> right. >> yes. >> on south korea, regarding the possibility of nuclear -- adding more nuclear weapons to the korean peninsula, does the u.s. have any plans or intention to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to the korean peninsula?

>> no. >> next? >> okay, joe and louis and then rosalind and then dan -- and then one more go around the room. >> to follow up on the question on syria, would you consider the jordan -- the military exercises in jordan kind of messages to the regime in the future, for example? >> the message that joint exercises with jordan sense that we have a very strong military relationship with jordan. >> and other countries in the region. >> and other countries. >> this is an exercise that we do on a frequent basis. i believe it is annual. it is a big exercise. but it's not like we don't do these exercises or haven't on them in the past. it is just a routine part of theater security cooperation efforts.

as george said, there is a message to be found in there, it is that we have a presence and we will exercise that presence, and we will work closely with our allies and partners to make sure that readiness across the board remains high. >> and the larger point, this is part of our defense strategy. exercises with other countries. we have done this in a robust manner with a range of countries around the world. and as we work through, you know, the next phase of the complexion of the u.s. military, i think this is going to be very important. not just in the middle east, but also in the asia pacific and south america and elsewhere. >> just a follow-up michael's question on the f-22, just to confirm, is there a re-examination of the f. 35 design? whether it is the oxygen system or other aspects of that aircraft to ensure that it did not have the same problem as the

f-22 design and so on? the development of the f. 35 was in part shaped by the f-22 design and so on. so is it clear that that is not a concern or is that being looked at? >> it is safe to say that air force leadership as well as manufacture are trying to learn as many lessons as they can from what is going on with the f-22 for future programs and i don't know to any degree with specificity, what has revolved around the f. 35 in particular. even in the defense industry environment, we are all going to work very hard to make sure that the problem gets solved for this aircraft and doesn't get repeated in another manner. >> i wanted to come something back to something you said about pilot reticence. how reluctant have pilots been to fly the f-22, and how have

they need that plane to the secretary -- the secretary of the air force, to their commanders. has that had an impact on the kind of training on the kind of missions that they have been able to conduct using this particular aircraft? >> we might need to check with the air force for specifics, rosalind, but as i understand it, concerns have been raised through the chain of command. we take very seriously safety concerns raised by the men who fly these planes. we have to take their assessments into account when we're looking at how an aircraft flies and how the safety of the flying place apart. so when there are expirations of concern, we're going to take them seriously. >> would it be fair to say, but because these concerns came all the way up into the secretary's office, but this is one of the reasons why the secretary is ordering the steps as opposed to

simply letting the air force brass handle it? >> well, i don't think it's either or. the air force has been handling it. they have been managing this problem identification process. and they have taken themselves very seriously, the concerns addressed by air force pilots. the secretary also has the same concerns. it is not either or. secretaries concerned, the air force leadership is concerned, and the secretary wanted to issue the directive today, in order to show that he, in a very formal way, is taking action to address the safety concerns raised by pilots and others. >> when it gets to the secretaries level and the secretary feels moved enough to say something that it's not going to -- it's not going to trigger among the general public, there must be seriously something wrong with the f-22 is the secretary has to get

involved. >> well, i'm -- all i can say is that the secretary is very concerned about the concerns. to repeat myself, he takes very seriously the concerns raised by pilots. okay? and that is his paramount concern. it is not about public perception. he wants to make sure that these problems are fixed. this is a -- this is a process that he is engaged in and is driven by. the motive of trying to fix this problem. >> safety is a zero-sum game in the military. it only takes one. it only needs to take one safety concern that is deemed at all valid or even just to be investigated for us to want to make the appropriate leadership positions. i mean, there is no margin for error. safety is a zero-sum game. >> has the secretary met with any pilots who have been concerned about this? >> not to my knowledge.

>> he said he's been briefed by -- >> he's been briefed on and i'm not aware of any face-to-face meetings? america has spent billions of dollars on these two new fighter aircraft. the f-22 has a problem and the pilots making -- they are nervous to fly it. and it potentially cost one pilot step. the f. 35 can't land on a carrier. the f. 35 variant was on probation for many months. is there a bigger picture problem with the way we buy these high-end weapons systems that make them too reliant on the manufacturer and not rely enough on the people who actually are going to use these weapons systems in combat? can anything be done were we too far gone?

>> look, anytime you purchase a new system, whether it is a ship or an airplane or a motorized vehicle, there are always going to be technical issues that have to be ironed out. often times it takes several iterations of a copy of one of those systems before you get all things and all bugs ironed out. in this case, with the f-22, it is a safety of flight issue to the human body of the pilot in the cockpit that we are taking very seriously. i think it would be leap to just use this incident with this aircraft and say we have some larger acquisition problems writ large with how we purchase and buy and set requirements and control costs for aircraft in general. we are taking this case very very seriously. that's why the secretary is involved. and you have to remember, the majority of f-22 pilots are flying every day.

as you know, deployment to southwest asia has been no problem. it is flying. as i said to roslyn, it doesn't take but one validated, sincere safety concern to cost leadership -- it should cause the leadership to the highest levels -- to be concerned and register that concern. >> a new topic? >> mutilate maybe a couple new questions and then we will wrap up. >> how much will it cost to fund the ansf through 2025, and how much of that do you expect to get from nato allies committed during this upcoming summit we can? >> i don't have specific figures, but i believe that art isaf partners and we and the government of afghanistan have a very strong interest in sustaining a ansf force that can provide security for the people of afghanistan. and we realize that there is

going to need to be helped up on that. the afghans themselves are willing to pony up money to fund the effort. we're going to do all we can to try to fund the efforts you. but this has to be a multilateral funding effort. we think that there should be contributions from other countries. and so we will be looking to ensure that we -- i mean, first and foremost, we want to ansf to be strong and capable and they are making extraordinary progress. secondly, we need to be strong and capable for the long-term. we want to make sure that the size of the ansf is appropriate. and third, honestly, it takes resources. it takes people and also it takes money and equipment. so we will be looking at the long-term funding as well, for the ansf, and that's going to be the trajectory that we have in terms of trying to identify

funding. >> one more. i mean, you're welcome to wrap up the conversation. are you calling the questions, bob? [laughter] >> well, that's a shorter then usual question. [laughter] >> did the secretary of defense -- did he extend his you to her as saceur ntu commander? and has a secretary also reached out to nasa and the navy to see what they have done? >> all right, and then we will let bob called a press conference. >> this is the plan right now. and i am just not enough of a technical expert to explain why the timeline is that the way it is. i'm not aware that he is asked

for a pool of pilots. but he has, as part of his direction to the air force today, he has requested that they reach out to both the navy and nasa, as they began to continue to troubleshoot the program. >> i grew up in this town. i was raised in northern virginia. my father worked in government. one of the oldest parlor games in washington dc is trying to figure out who's going to be the next in a particular job. i'm simply not going to get involved in that kind of speculation were parlor game. there have been no announcements made on saceur or on other leadership positions in the military. and so you can count me out of your next parlor game, okay?

>> it's trivial pursuit, sure you don't want to come? >> trivial pursuit, i confess, i like. that's it. thanks everyone. >> thank you. >> all right. >> you are watching c-span 2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> tomorrow morning, "washington journal" takes a look at the government's role and forecasting and researching tornadoes. our guess is piques bots who wrote an article in the christian science monitor entitled inside the funnel. we know more than ever about twisters. he will take your phone calls tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.

eastern. >> today mitt romney returned to iowa for the first time since the states republican caucuses in january. campaigning in des moines, he called the national debt america's nightmare. this is just over 20 minutes. >> thank you. a warm welcome. thank you for the introduction. governor, good to see you here. we have a wonderful presence in this room and i appreciate the chance to see you again. it's good to be back in iowa. so many friends. here in this room across the state -- behold a very special place in my heart. i appreciate you coming to spend a few moments with me today. i have come here today to talk about an issue that affects the very heart of america. and, of course, iowa is much more than a collection of

beautiful farms and small towns and cities bounded by two of america's great rivers. it is also a collection of the values that built america and has sustained us through good times and bad. and you know well what those values are. hard work, taking care of our neighbors, family, common sense. common sense -- kitchen table values, not fancy, but enduring values. these are the values that we no won't lead to spending sprees and piling up debt for your grandchildren. these are not the values with the hope that someone else down the road will solve the problems. as you just heard from the lieutenant governor, america faces a financial crisis. debt and spending that threaten what it means to be american.

here in the heartland, you know in your hearts that is wrong. we cannot spend another four years talking about solving the problem when we know that we are making it worse every single day. when the men and women who settled the arbitrary, they didn't look around for someone else to say them or go back to sleep and hope the wind might change directions. they knew that survival was up to them. a prairie fire is sweeping across iowa and the nation. and every day that we fail to act, that fire gets closer to their homes and the children that we love. now, you know also, this is not solely a democrat or republican problem. the issue isn't who deserves the most blame. the issue is who is going to do what it takes to put out the fire. now, the people of iowa and america have watched president obama nearly four years now, much of that time with congress

controlled by his own party. rather than putting up that spending fire, he has been feeding it. he has spent more and borrow more. the time has come for a president, a leader who will lead us. i will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno. we will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can even imagine from foreign countries we are never even went to visit. i will work with you to make sure that we put out the spending and borrowing fire. [applause] [applause] >> a lot of people think this is a problem we can solve. and i reject that kind of a cannot do to peter's talk. it is wrong. what has happened here -- it isn't complicated. washington has been spending too

much money and our new president made things worse. his policies have taken us backwards. almost a generation ago, bill clinton announced that the era of big government was over. even a former campaign worker like president clinton, was signaling to his own party that democrats should no longer try to govern by proposing a new program for every problem. president obama tucked away the clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas come along with transparency and bipartisanship. [laughter] [applause] [applause] it is enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the clintons, but probably it runs much deeper than that. president obama is an old-school liberal, whose first instinct is to see free enterprise is a villain in government as the

hero. america cannot president obama to rescue the economy, to taint the deficit and help create jobs. instead, he build up public sector, gave billions of dollars to companies of his friends, and added all most as much debt as all combined. the consequence is that we are now enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history. the consequence is that half the kids who are graduating from college can't find a job to use their skills. half of them. the consequence is that retirees can no longer get by on their savings and social security. the consequence is that the length of time it takes an unemployed worker to find a job is the longest on record. that is why even those who voted for barack obama are disappointed in him. disappointment is the key in

which the president's reelection is being placed. americans will not settle for four more years of the same melancholy song. we can and must do better than that. [applause] [applause] president obama started out with a near trillion dollar stimulus package. it was the biggest and most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history. and remember this. the stimulus wasn't just wasted. it was borrowed and wasted. we still owe the money. we are still paying interest on it. and it will be that way long after this president is out of office. of course, then came obamacare. even now, nobody knows what will actually cost, and that uncertainty has slowed the economy. employers delay hiring, entrepreneurs put off starting

new businesses, because of his massive debt that americans did not want and cannot afford. when you have all of these policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion. we need to put that in a way that is easier for all of us to comprehend. $5 trillion is not easy to put our minds around. you are households share -- you are households share of government that an unfunded liabilities has reached more than $520,000. her average american household. inc. about what that means. your household will be taxed year after year just to pay the interest on that debt could end to pay the principal payments on those liabilities. every year you were born to be paying for things that have happened in the past could and it will get passed along to your

kids. they will struggle with the interest on our debts. president obama is adding to them every single day. that, by the way, is the best case scenario. the interest rate on that debt could go up like a rocket. just like an adjustable mortgage goes up. there is also a good chance that this kind of debt due process to hit a wall, like they have in greece and spain and italy. subprime mortgages. they came close to bringing this economy to its knees. this debt is america's nightmare mortgage. it is adjustable, no money down, and a sign to her children. and politicians have been trying to hide the truth about this nightmare mortgage for years, just like liar loans. this is not just bad economics. it is morally wrong, and we must stop it. [applause] [applause]

>> during my years in business and state government, we recognize the economy has three major players. the private sector, free enterprise come in the states and localities, and then the federal government. of the three, the private sector is by far the most efficient and cost effective in providing the people of our nation the products and services they want. that is because scores and scores of businesses and thousands and upon thousands of entrepreneurs compete every day to find a way to deliver a product or service that is better than anyone else's. they are all trying to come up with something better. think about smart phones. blackberry got things going. then apple introduced the

iphone. now the android platform is leading the market. in a world of free enterprise, competition brings us better products at lower cost. that's the whole idea. not because they are all smarter, big because there are people competing with ideas, coming up with better ways to come up with better products. the customer, that is us, benefits from all of this. government doesn't begin to compare when it comes to the change and improvements that provide better and less expensive services and products. you can't compare with the private sector. among governments, to states and localities are more responsive than the federal government, but by far the slowest and least responsive sector is the federal government. it has no competition that recognizes. nobody here -- washington dc, the home of efficiency.

[applause] just imagine if the federal government would be the whole legal supplier of cell phones. first of all, they would still be under review. all right? you would be listening to hearings in congress on cell phones. when they were finally approved, the contract to make them would go to an obama donor. and of course, they would come out looking like the size of a shoe with a collectible solar panel attached to the side of it. [applause] [applause] and of course, campaign donors would be lining up to see who could get appointed to become the czar. my point is this. and it is an important point. as president obama, an old-school liberals like him, have put our economy into debt, and the private sector gets

smaller and government gets bigger, everything we do becomes more expensive, less efficient, less useful. government makes america less competitive. the more government, the more expensive it is. what president obama is doing is not bold. it is old. as president, i want to make the federal government simple, smaller, smarter. [applause] [applause] this is part of the brilliance of the founders. they recognize that individual people, citizens, pursuing their own dreams, would be able to create a stronger, more vibrant life for the american people than the government. that is why what i'm describing is consistent with the constitution. this is why i don't, for one moment,, sure my opponents believe that our spending problems can be solved with more taxes to you don't know washington a bigger share of your paycheck. instead of putting more limits on their earnings and on your options, and on your enterprises, we need to place we

are in firm limits on government and on its spending. [applause] [applause] right now the federal government spends about a quarter of the entire economy. i want to bring that down to 20% of the economy within four years. by the end of my first term, we dramatically scale back the intrusiveness and the size of borrowing of the federal government. the president's plan assumes an endless expansion. with rising costs and of course, with the spread of obamacare. i will halt expansion of government, and i will repeal obamacare. [applause] [applause] working together, we can save social security. without making any changes to the system for people nearing

retirement. we have two basic options to do that. for future retirees, no change for current or near retirees. one would-be tax increase for high income retirees or high income retirees to be. the other would be to increase the rate of benefit growth for high income retirees to be. i say, the second option. it protects everyone in the system or near it, and also avoid higher taxes the drag on the economy and make it harder to create jobs. i've also proposed a plan for medicare that proves that program and keeps it solvent and slows the rate of growth of cost and health care. both of those reforms are relatively simple compared to the far more difficult choices we are going to face if we do nothing. and of course, medicare and social security are also very easy to demagogue. and i expect the president to continue doing that throughout the campaign. americans are onto that and i am

not going to insult voters the voters by pretending that we can just keep putting off entitlement reform. i'm going to continue to speak honestly to the american people, and if elected, i will do what is right for the people of this great country. [applause] [applause] now the president's effort to redundancy and waste -- think about these numbers. in 2011, the government accountability office found 34 areas where agencies, offices or initiatives in the federal government had overlapping objectives and were providing similar services. the gao admitted that redundancy could save over $100 billion. yet a year later, only three of the 34 areas has even been fully addressed, and only one program has been defunded. in 2010, 17 federal government

agencies gave $7.7 billion more to the united nations than is required under our agreement with the united nations. another example. there are 94 federal programs in 11 agencies that encourage green buildings. the report found that the results of those initiatives and investments are unknown. we see the same bureaucracy and overhead in our antipoverty programs. last year from the federal government spent more than $600 billion on more than 100 different antipoverty programs. all of them designed to help those who couldn't help themselves. my approach to federal programs and bureaucracy is entirely different. move programs to the state or private sector where they can be run more efficiently and where we can do a better job helping the people who need our help.

[applause] [applause] shut down programs that aren't working. cut them off. eliminate them. get rid of them. obamacare would be number one. [applause] [applause] and then, of course, streamline everything else that is left. it is time for the people of america to take back the government of america, and we are going to get that job done. [applause] [applause] entitlement reform, doing away with the redundancy and waste in government, and shipping services and programs to the economic player who can deliver the best, these are the serious steps towards getting our debt and spending under control but i am going to take. above all, we need to shake up the static big government mindset of the past three years and all the limits and regulations that go with them.

we need a big turnaround here. and it is going to require a focus, unrelenting long-term agenda for economic growth. instead of leading the world and in how much we borrow, we have to continue to lead the world and how much we create. with all that we have been through in these last few years, the challenges can seem awfully big. and some, i look at america and wonder if we have lost our confidence. the confidence isn't what is missing. all that is lacking now is t missing. all that is lacking now is the right direction and leadership. these have been years of disappointment. and decline. soon we can put all that behind us. we can prosper again. with a powerful recovery we have all been waiting for. the good jobs that so many still need to read and above all, the opportunities we owe to our children and our grandchildren. while this can be more than a hope. it can actually be our future. it can begin this year in the choice you make.

so i am asking for your help. your support, and fewer boats on the sixth of november. this is a critical year. this is a decisive year. this is the year where we decide what kind of america we will have. larger and larger government, that is less efficient and more expensive, a nightmare mortgage crushing our future and the future for our children. or instead, returning to the vibrance and power of america as we know it. i am convinced that you're going to see this nation a resurgence in our manufacturing sector, a resurgence in innovation and startups and new businesses creating new jobs. my vision for the future is a bright and prosperous one. we are not weighed down with the problems of the past if we have a leader who understands the potential of the future. with your help, working together, giving iowa in my column in november, we can get america back on track.

so you can be confident that your children and theirs will have a brighter future than even what we have enjoyed during our lives. thank you so much, and god bless this great country. [applause] [applause] [music playing] [music playing] [applause] [applause] [music playing] [music playing] [applause] [applause]

is a co. [music playing] [music playing] [applause] [applause]

is a is a co

[music playing] [music playing] >> every week, british british prime minister david cameron goes before parliament to answer questions with the house of commons. you can see the prime minister's questions tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 2. you are watching c-span 2 with politics and public affairs

weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see programs and get our schedules at her website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. senator barbara boxer of california chairs the committee working on legislation dealing with the nation nation's roads, bridges and mass transit. today, she said that she is optimistic that we can come to an agreement on the bill. the news conference this afternoon was about 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everybody. i'm going to try to complete this before i go down for the next vote. at the opening of the surface transportation bill conference on may 8, i said that i would

give regular updates on the progress that we are making. here i am to talk to you about the progress. i'm not going to be addressing specific negotiations between the countries, but i can tell you that we have moved past the organizational stage. we have already had about 20 hours of meeting today to. we are working on the substance of the bill. the staff has been working every day on the issues which are broke down into groups roughly centered around our committee. for example, obviously you would have senator baucus working on on the bridges. he would have senator baucus on highways and bridges. you would have the banking community dealing with transit. and then, the other issues we

have broken down. there are other issues such as the restore act, and excel and company and very various items that are handled by myself and senator baucus. that gives you a sense of the way we have broken it down. the vice-chairman and i have been in touch by phone. we were just talking on thursday. i will be breaking members, all of them, this week. the process has been very inclusive. i expected to yield good results. every council has been involved from the freshman to the most senior staff. i have also been doing one-on-one discussions in my office and having coffee, doing

meetings with individual members who have specific issues that they want to talk about. so i am optimistic that we can reach an agreement on this bill, and the reason is, again, we are starting from a very bipartisan senate bill, which passed 7422. it has many proposals, including an expanded trivia, which is a leveraging mechanism that we used that will create 1 million new jobs. we also have program consolidation and given the states more flexibility. a lot of reforms, no earmarks. these are all things of the house wants house wants to see help happen as well. the conference was up and running in record time because this bill is so important to our workers and our businesses and our economy. and we have a june 30 deadline. that is critical. that is when the current transportation extension

expires. and we all know these extensions are really a death knell for jobs and businesses in our country. there is another reason i am quite optimistic about this, and i will lay it out for you. two days ago, the court of comments wrote in politico, and they wrote a powerful piece that i think speaks to every member. they talk about how doctor cunning cuts to the budget are dangerous and destructive to transit assistance in better needs to significant upgrades and they talk about the disarray of the infrastructure. they say that without successful highway conferences, they said congress would have to cut highway safety programs by 60%,

according to analysis by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. so this feeling can be stronger. i strongly suggest that you take a look at this article that was published on the 13th of may. it was very clear. they talk about how giving all the authority back to the states simply won't work. that is the reason i am very optimistic. obviously, we have the best majority of democrats in favor of the senate bill and we have a chairman report of republicans in the senate, and we have to persuade the house republicans. the chamber of commerce has been very supportive in every way you can think of. in addition, hot off the press today, about five minutes or 10 minutes ago, there is a historic

letter you can get a copy of. i believe we have copies here for you. it is a communication to the conference on the reauthorization of the judge's transportation program. i will tell you that the link these groups -- it is almost unheard of at some of these groups are on the same letter. looking through these names of these groups, and you hear the message, you will see why i am optimistic that we will get a conference report. on behalf of our respective organizations, we urge you to quickly complete work on math 21 by passing a conference report in order to get a bill to the president for the entire transportation transportation program expires on june 30. this is a historic moment, they write, because the american economy is at risk and the nation is following falling further behind on our infrastructure. the nation's economy is at a critical stage and this bill can be a major factor in sharing those strengths with the

american economy. they say a few more things and then they conclude. again, this legislation must be passed before the june 30 deadline to create jobs, protect businesses and keep america on the cutting edge of tremper -- transportation. the american association of state highway and transition officials, the american trucking association, just had a meeting with them in my office there. they are so solid behind this bill. the american society of civil engineers. his ascension of equipment manufacturers. the american automobile association. the associated general contractors of america. the national center gravel association. american capital engineering company, american transportation and road builders association, activision trades department of the laborers international union

of america. the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers. american public transportation association. american highway users, the international bridge tunnel association, the associated equipment distributors. these groups and all their logos are on this. and i will make sure that the members of the conference committee received this letter, along with the copy of the letter. i'm working on a parallel of strategy. one is an inside strategy and one is an outside strategy. the inside strategy is to make sure that everyone involved, everyone participates, everyone is walked through the door and it's the questions answered, and every member can put their idea on the table. the outside strategy is to continue to encourage these incredible and powerful and important organizations to weigh in on the signing of the bill. i'm happy to take whatever

questions that you have. >> [inaudible question] >> it will be included. it is in both bills. it will be included, exactly how it all comes out is what we are going to be talking about. i fully support every part of the act. it is hugely important for the gulf states. also, it has a piece that deals with the land and conference untrimmed conservation fund. >> [inaudible question] >> i'm not treating this

question any different than the others, my door is open to everybody. but i am having individual meetings with those who have reached out to me and ask for those meetings. i am encouraged because of the two reasons. one, the fact that we do have is very important coalition that is very active and every one of their states and every one of our states. so we all have a lot of them. i have said this numerous times so forgive me if it's boring to you. i always think of this as 12 stadiums -- super bowl stadiums full of people and they are all unemployed construction workers. 1.2 million. that image drives me forward. and i hope it is driving them forward to. every one of us gets thousands and thousands of jobs from this bill. and thousands of businesses will be saved, rescue, kept going, and new businesses will spring up. let me just say, every single member on that committee has my deep respect, they got there

because of the leadership chosen, and we are all working together. i have an open door to all of them, including the freshman. >> [inaudible question] >> that is very important. i'm on that particular -- i am heading that working group along with max baucus to get that done. >> [inaudible question] >> something like restore act testerman is a pill. i really do believe that. and i think it will help be an engine. >> are you confident that the keystone will be involved in the

final -- >> won't be involved? >> just. >> can give us an update? >> i never said that. we haven't gone down to the areas of disagreement, but we will end we let you know. >> 10 democrats live with that [inaudible question] >> we already had a vote on keystone, and we didn't get 60 votes. we have to figure out a way to get through that hurdle. and i think that we will. we will figure it out. but we haven't gotten down to that. what we are doing now is walking through the built in getting the areas of agreement. and that is what we are doing. >> you said 60 votes. i thought that you only needed -- >> they needed 60, but they didn't get it. >> right, -- [inaudible] >> i am talking about the will of the senate. i'm in a conference representing the senate. what i said from the start is

this controversy can get through either house. so we have to work together to find the sweet spot. if somebody doesn't like it, it is filibustered. i have to get 60 votes on the bill. >> but you're not saying that this will be keystone in the final bill? >> i'm not staying saying anything about keystone. we are working on all these issues. we have been in negotiation for a week and it has been a walk-through. now we are getting to it. when we resolve these issues, i will be here explain them to you. i will be here every week, once a week until we get this done. >> have there been any members who have said -- [inaudible] >> if you listen to the opening statements, you know, people

said senator, why did you call such a big conference? i had a reason. i wanted to sure what they said. what i felt was most encouraging to me, i didn't hear anybody talk a line in the sentence if i don't get my way on this, i'm out of here. i didn't hear that from anybody. and i am very unhappy about that. i think he gives us a chance to work together. if you can't work together, were not going to be able to do it. we have to meet each other in the center. we cannot stay in our corners. how did we ever get a bill between inhofe in bacchus? a bill that was agreed to by bacchus and bitter? this isn't easy. but you have to listen to each other and work together, and that is what i plan to do in this conference. >> [inaudible question] >> yes.

>> [inaudible question] >> i talk to the chairman yesterday and we agreed that we needed to find the funding. i am very optimistic on the funding side. because i think that senator baucus and congressman are working on that. i want the longest bill that we can get that we can pay for because we need time to figure out the long-term solution to how to fund transportation. we will have to come up with that. obviously, we need a grievance to sit back and look at how we're going to do that. especially with cars doing better in fuel economy, which we all support. we know that we have to find another mechanism other than tax. >> [inaudible question] >> everybody is invited for the briefing. yes, i have several meetings set up for this